Hey look, it's a climate change thread!

[GMDino]

(01-16-2017, 05:27 PM)Beaker Wrote: Salvaging a game by a score of 18-16 with help from the refs is soooo last year.....boring.

So was the Bengals getting to the playoffs.

Or having a winning record.

[Beaker]

(01-16-2017, 05:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: So was the Bengals getting to the playoffs.

Or having a winning record.

Did you figure out what my first post in this thread meant yet, or are you still jerking off over 6 FGs?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(01-16-2017, 08:58 PM)Beaker Wrote: Did you figure out what my first post in this thread meant yet, or are you still jerking off over 6 FGs?

Reading this thread reminds me of a Dangerfield joke.  "I went to a prize fight and a hockey game broke out!"

[hollodero]

OK, I get it. Open an economics thread and people talk climate change. Open a climate change thread then and people talk Steelers. God knows how disgusting things would get if I opened a Steelers thread.

Each time, the topic gets more depraved, into the darkness of misguided human behaviour. I mean, Steelers. I couldn't bring a single person in my circles to love the Bengals - but I easily could bring everyone to hate the Steelers, and they will tell their kids, it's my biggest legacy. It's so easy to do. Just point to Pig Ben or that overly ridiculous towels... I mean, towels.... they are terrible allright, a terrible terrible fan asset. The colours are awful. The name Steelers is awful. The coaches are awful human beings, the players are awful human beings, even the name Heinz field is awful. Being a Steelers fan is a symptom of overboarding tastelessness. How open some people admit to it is astonishing. If I had a black purulent wart on my body, I would at least keep it hidden instead of willingly show it around for everyone to see. What is wrong with people, really. That's all there is to be said about the Steelers.


Now climate change, anyone?
Let's talk about climate sensitivity! The Boltzmann-Formula! I know while you seemingly all weaseled away from the topic, you really all wondered when I finally talk some formulas, and Boltzmann in particular. I understand that. So finally.

S = c . T^4. Who would have thought. S is (here earth's) radiation power, T is the Temperature (here: on earth). If temperature changes due to changes in radiation - this won't take long - are looked for, one can differentiate that formula (looking for dS/dT), arriving at

dT = 1/4 T/S dS. I checked, it really turns out that way.

Now that radiation change dS is the factor in question, and that's the center of many debates - how does dS (the "radiation power change") and hence the Temperature change dT change when CO2 concentration changes? JustWin, in one of the few substantial responses, did that. Pointing out that this dS is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Hence, a small effect.
Luckily, it is really widely undisputed (even amongst critics) how that dS needs to be factored into.  After a series of overly complicated steps the real consensus is (the way I read it anyhow): Doubling the CO2 concentration directly leads to a temperature rise of about 1 to 1.1°C. 
Hence Baby is somehow right. That isn't much. And concentration only has risen from 280 to about 400 ppm, so we are not even in doubling range. We add 2ppm each year, so well, in 160 years global temperature will probably have risen about 1°C as a direct - direct - result of human CO2 emission.

So why the fuzz? It's the amplifications that cause the fuzz. The indirect effects of CO2 and temperature change, that's what it seems to come down to.  IPCC used to arrive at way higher climate sensitivity, e.g. higher temperature rises, because of additional effects that are caused by a rising temperature (not to forget other greenhouse gasses we release), but not directly by CO2. Like additional water vapor due to a warmer planet (more humidification). Turns out we don't seem to have significant amounts of additional H2O in the atmosphere, a fact that indeed is not part of the public debate, although being a really important one. H2O is a way more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. That's where I have to agree with the JustWinBabys of this world - the doomsday projections are somehow capped and have gotten less likely. The fact that water vapor is not on a distinct rise supports that.

Then again - Methane is a potent greenhouse gas too, and a lot of it is contained by permafrost. Even tiny temperature changes can cause some permafrost to melt, hence releasing methane and providing a huge amplification. Melting ice surfaces can cause lesser reflection, another amplification. Can anyone seriously factor in these things? Seems like no.

Things that lead me to the assumption: A whole variety of outcomes is probable. Assuming we're on the doomsday branch is not the most likely one. Assuming we simply could adapt to just very slight temperature rises seems equally unlikely. We would take a risk by denying the danger, a risk for habitability on earth, a risk not worth taking.
To me, the wisest thing was already said.

(01-16-2017, 12:35 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Even if we imagine that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is somehow wrong. Oh well, we only ended up with cleaner air, clean energy, independence from other countries, sustainability, clean water.

People can deny climate change, but even those who fanatically do never provided an answer to that: What is so bad about taking measures against climate change? We would be more independent from oil, more independent of arab sheikhs and middle east conflicts, are protected against peak oil, don't need fracking and earthquakes and such, no oil spills and leaking pipelines, we don't cause acidation of the oceans (even if the temperature rise stays moderate, THIS seems to be a huge problem of our rising CO2 level), can create energy sources that are sustainable, a whole bunch of positive effects. We would also create clean jobs and would get rid of hazardous ones (digging for coal is not healthy) - so what's the point in being certain we don't need to change anything and all is just a hoax? What's the point in taking this risk (and if you're sensible, even if you do not believe in climate change there has to be a remaining risk no one can completely dispute)?

Plus, if it were a hoax, cui bono? (Whoever says "scientists" really has no concept about a scientist's earnings, big money is to be made elsewhere in the first place; fame is also not part of the deal for scientists)

Here are some questions, some disputable thoughts, maybe I even got the math or the consequences dead wrong, there would be much to question, discuss or anything.
Which certainly means people will talk about something completely different now, if at all.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-17-2017, 10:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: People can deny climate change, but even those who fanatically do never provided an answer to that: What is so bad about taking measures against climate change? 

I don't think people deny climate change, per se (I mean, there will ALWAYS be kooks who believe the weirdest and/or dumbest thinigs), so much as they deny that humanity has an effect on climate change. I'm not a denier, but I'm not so positive man has a HUGE effect on the climate. I accept that mankind does have an effect on climate, but how much effect is what I'm not sold on either way (though admittedly, I lean towards lesser effect).
With that said, I don't think people have issues with recycling or cleaner-running vehicles, etc. I think the issue that many people have is with forced (i.e. outlawing gas guzzling vehicles) and/or ineffectual solutions (i.e. carbon offsets).
The problem, IMO, is this trend we have in America of arguing in the extremes and demonizing those from the opposing side of an issue.

[GMDino]

(01-17-2017, 01:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't think people deny climate change, per se (I mean, there will ALWAYS be kooks who believe the weirdest and/or dumbest thinigs), so much as they deny that humanity has an effect on climate change. I'm not a denier, but I'm not so positive man has a HUGE effect on the climate. I accept that mankind does have an effect on climate, but how much effect is what I'm not sold on either way (though admittedly, I lean towards lesser effect).
With that said, I don't think people have issues with recycling or cleaner-running vehicles, etc. I think the issue that many people have is with forced (i.e. outlawing gas guzzling vehicles) and/or ineffectual solutions (i.e. carbon offsets).
The problem, IMO, is this trend we have in America of arguing in the extremes and demonizing those from the opposing side of an issue.

And profit.  And money.

That will always be the biggest opponent of change....how much money will it cost and how much will it cut into my bottom line.

[*PhilHos*]

(01-17-2017, 01:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: And profit.  And money.

That will always be the biggest opponent of change....how much money will it cost and how much will it cut into my bottom line.

That too.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

[hollodero]

(01-17-2017, 01:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't think people deny climate change, per se (I mean, there will ALWAYS be kooks who believe the weirdest and/or dumbest thinigs), so much as they deny that humanity has an effect on climate change.

Yeah that's what I meant.
People who acknowledge rising temperatures but claim it's solely because of sun eruptions or solar spots are deniers to me, too.

(01-17-2017, 01:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm not a denier, but I'm not so positive man has a HUGE effect on the climate. I accept that mankind does have an effect on climate, but how much effect is what I'm not sold on either way (though admittedly, I lean towards lesser effect).
With that said, I don't think people have issues with recycling or cleaner-running vehicles, etc. I think the issue that many people have is with forced (i.e. outlawing gas guzzling vehicles) and/or ineffectual solutions (i.e. carbon offsets).
The problem, IMO, is this trend we have in America of arguing in the extremes and demonizing those from the opposing side of an issue.

The problem... well, many Americans, as I see it, are not the most nuanced people, more the black and white fraction. Which comes with advantages and disadvantages; as does our European way of compromising. Regarding climate change, our compromises are rotten to me. You either acknowledge there's a problem or you don't. Acknowledging it and fighting it with hollow phrases and avoiding any responsibility is pointless; flatout deniers are more honest as I said.
But that's the issue. If you see man-made climate change as a problem, you need to take measures. Gas guzzling vehicles are part of the problem, and I have no problem taxing those who drive it with the highest amounts. Carbon offsets might be a good idea in principle, too (although being highly compromised in reality, I figure). But accepting climate change comes with accepting policies and measures addressing climate change, or it's not worth accepting in the first place. And the energy saving lamp might not be quite enough.
And if you're on that side of the argument, you do not have much wiggle room to accept the stances of the "other side" - so addressing it also comes with opposing those who don't. Or else you compromise in doing just very little, which is quite meaningless.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-17-2017, 10:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: People can deny climate change, but even those who fanatically do never provided an answer to that: What is so bad about taking measures against climate change? We would be more independent from oil, more independent of arab sheikhs and middle east conflicts, are protected against peak oil, don't need fracking and earthquakes and such, no oil spills and leaking pipelines, we don't cause acidation of the oceans (even if the temperature rise stays moderate, THIS seems to be a huge problem of our rising CO2 level), can create energy sources that are sustainable, a whole bunch of positive effects. We would also create clean jobs and would get rid of hazardous ones (digging for coal is not healthy) - so what's the point in being certain we don't need to change anything and all is just a hoax? What's the point in taking this risk (and if you're sensible, even if you do not believe in climate change there has to be a remaining risk no one can completely dispute)?

I think it's a big Joke, just like Y2k was a pretty big joke and a big money maker (for me at least it was) by claiming the end is near. Yes there is probably some truth to it, but not enough to call for the world ending anytime soon.

With that said, I despise that we are over polluting our environment (Plastic Island in the Pacific). There is nothing wrong with being more respectful of our environment.

[hollodero]

(01-17-2017, 04:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think it's a big Joke, just like Y2k was a pretty big joke and a big money maker (for me at least it was) by claiming the end is near. Yes there is probably some truth to it, but not enough to call for the world ending anytime soon.

Y2K profiteer? I remember those people... canny folk.

As for the climate change content - to be fair, no one really claims the end of the world is near because of apocalyptic temperature rising. That's an exaggerated perception.
The world won't end, and humankind won't die out because of climate change. It might just be that life on earth becomes more difficult. Climate refugees, sea level rise, weather extremes... and those things. Not the end of the world, yet not exactly pleasant. In all likelihood our grandchildren will face the troubles though.

(01-17-2017, 04:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: With that said, I despise that we are over polluting our environment (Plastic Island in the Pacific). There is nothing wrong with being more respectful of our environment.

True, although a slightly different topic.

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-17-2017, 02:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah that's what I meant.
People who acknowledge rising temperatures but claim it's solely because of sun eruptions or solar spots are deniers to me, too.


The problem... well, many Americans, as I see it, are not the most nuanced people, more the black and white fraction. Which comes with advantages and disadvantages; as does our European way of compromising. Regarding climate change, our compromises are rotten to me. You either acknowledge there's a problem or you don't. Acknowledging it and fighting it with hollow phrases and avoiding any responsibility is pointless; flatout deniers are more honest as I said.
But that's the issue. If you see man-made climate change as a problem, you need to take measures. Gas guzzling vehicles are part of the problem, and I have no problem taxing those who drive it with the highest amounts. Carbon offsets might be a good idea in principle, too (although being highly compromised in reality, I figure). But accepting climate change comes with accepting policies and measures addressing climate change, or it's not worth accepting in the first place. And the energy saving lamp might not be quite enough.
And if you're on that side of the argument, you do not have much wiggle room to accept the stances of the "other side" - so addressing it also comes with opposing those who don't. Or else you compromise in doing just very little, which is quite meaningless.

I usually at least try not to ramble in a thread (not that it always works out that way), but simply from observing how threads have become hijacked in P 'n R lately (or probably always), I'm going to take a bit of leeway and ramble on many topics in this post, but hopefully still keep the comments interesting and relevant instead of purely emotional and knee-jerk which makes rambling not too much fun to observe nor with much substance behind it.


First off, kudos to you for resurrecting this conversation, albeit seemingly without much fruition, in a more organized manner.  Atypical of most posters on this board, you tend to come off more open minded, and able of arguing the merits of a topic (from a self aware perspective) and again atypically flexible on changing your views when logically consistent counters based on plausibility are presented, without an emotional attachment to your previous views (or at least it's well disguised if it exists).  For the most part you seem able to focus on a topic and the point of debate, immune from another's intentional or unintentional attempt to derail or alter the point of debate in a thread.  So, keep it up.

Now, the point of the above paragraph is to show that in general, this type of comportment doesn't generally exist in U.S. politics nor in this forum (which as a subset of the U.S political realm of views and opinions, wouldn't be expected to diverge too much from the larger political spectrum), and therefore as you're probably aware, based on the mentioning of "nuance" in your post above, clear, logical and detached debates are not necessarily possible.  By detached, I mean emotionally detached from the outcome, as long as the outcome is arrived at from "truth", even if the outcome is detrimental.  Having said that, it probably doesn't differ too much from the political spectrum of most, if not all places in the world in terms of the lack of understanding or sympathizing with the "other" side, so I guess that is just the nature of where society is as a whole.  Probably, you may have experienced this type of environment in your part of the world as well.  Now the problem or the cause of this IMO, in the U.S., is that while the system of government was originally set up in a great way to represent the people in its intent, the politicians do not seem to have much of an incentive to do so.  Especially because policies that may be in the best interest of the nation as a whole may not be popular with your constituency.  While this is always part of the system, lately (or maybe I suppose for a long time), politicians are very good at playing the game of pitting groups against each other to the point that policies are neither discussed "honestly" with an assessment of strengths and weaknesses and NUANCE, but much rather in a my side vs. your side emotional ranting, with intentional obfuscation of topics on both sides (it almost seems that arguments are held on both "sides" against the imaginary other "side" with its imaginary "points", rather than a true discussion on actual points of contention).  Add in the monetary consequences of the industries which actually drive the arguments and the politics, it's no wonder that "real" discussions are never really even allowed to be had.  Things are made more "Black and White" with strawman arguments and conflations than actual merits following the line of thinking of various points.  

To relate this to a point about climate change, I will use this example.  I could be wrong, but typically when climate change/environmental impact is discussed, I don't think there's a deeper discussion on how to transition into alternative energy sources into areas where fossil fuel related industries exist, without throwing the economy in those areas into a tailspin.  There doesn't seem to be political discussions that actually focus on the strengths and weaknesses of different energy sources, both from a scientific standpoint and from the practical considerations on how their implementations can be phased in so that the populations which currently rely on fossil fuel energy sources can be transitioned into a new economy in a fairly seamless manner.   And the political environment turns any attempts at having these nuanced discussions into an opportunity to pit one group against another without allowing the real depth of the conversation to be brought to light.  Add in the opportunity for people to be easily misled for whatever reason (on both sides), be it not having time to be knowledgeable on the topic due to having barely enough time to make ends meet, an intentional campaign by industries and politicians to obscure facts and conflate arguments and to tailor them in a way that is intentionally false or at least misleading by omission,  accountability never taken while wrongly assigned to some other group etc., it seems neither "side" can actually accomplish anything meaningful or useful for the citizens as a whole anymore.  

Finally, to complete this rambling, I want to mention that I am not as well versed on the technical points of contention when it comes to the climate change debate, so atm, I'm neither a believer nor a denier.  That is obviously something I need to change, as I'd rather be informed than possibly another one who silently yet unwittingly aided in the propagation of whichever is the wrong side.  But I suppose once we hash out the "correct" view, then it's at least possible to take the next step and focus on how to implement things which will eventually be good for the U.S. (I know you're not American), and maybe eventually by example, good for the world.  So, how does one go about informing oneself with the right knowledge?  I am guessing if I googled this I would probably see enough opinions on both sides that to my untrained eye would just make it impossible to judiciously form an opinion.

[*michaelsean*]

Yeah can we get back to talking about why Steelers fans are stupid?

[hollodero]

@ mr. masterpanthera - sorry in advance for cherrypicking. Some points, while interesting, don't really demand a response.

As for the nuance thing - I didn't really mean to tag black and white thinking as "wrong". In fact I try to be more distinct sometimes. Which doesn't mean not hearing out other sides, trying to grasp their viewpoint and be open for what they say. I might be more open minded than others, not gonna lie, I see it like that too sometimes. But it's way easier for me. I am an outsider and not part of your everyday colliding partisan stances and your whole machinery. If In were an American, I probably would be a distinct blue factionist, that's just how it is. But never mind that, for I'm not and hence I don't care on that level. Hence I'm more "open minded" strictly due to my outside position. There's not much more to it.

It would in fact derail too much if I would talk about that aspect in full detail. Let's just say it is puzzling for Europeans sometimes, the lack of middle ground that is. Red America doesn't bother with climate change, blue America suddenly wants to be a pioneer in fighting it, and now red America will probably drive everything back. Blue America (on federal or state level) in amazing quickness enforces gay marriage or marijuana legalization, Red America still talks about outlawing abortion and wants to fully repeal ACA. Compromises or middle ground is no longer part of the equation, it's really my people's ideas against your people's ideas, we take back what the other side did whereever possible, and since the fractions hardened significantly, it will stay that way.

Half of the people don't vote in that system, take themselves out of these debates, probably just frustrated. The diehard partisans still vote. Whatever people say about Trumps victory and the forgotten blue collar voters - certainly true, but the waaay bigger factor is people voting Trump for they have always voted red and will always vote red until eternity, the devil himself could run; same thing is true in blue. Out of devotion for the colour or out of despising the other colour.

Swing voters will go back and forth, opposition always attracts some, so power will always change hands between team red and team blue. It hardens stances and kills open debates, kills being open-minded. And it kills consistency, which is probably the biggest disadvantage of all. The losing side just waits fundamentally opposed, doesn't move an inch. And so does the winning side in knowing that. No consensus. And in the end, it's not just within youir parties or politicians, it's within your political system. That's the root of the problem. The politicians, the factionists, the divided society, the black and white thinking in political questions are mainly just a product of that system. Outsider again, your founding fathers were great men in their time, but now the system they drew out is severely outdated and not a fit for the 21st century America and for good politics. But if you Americans are united on one topic, it's in opposing that simple and honestly even hardly disputable fact.

The lack of nuance, now, is a "bad" thing regarding social or other issues where there is no clear-cut "truth" to be reached. To things like gay marriage there is no "truth", I happen to believe they should be granted every right, but that's a stance and not a "truth". How to fight drugs, how to deal with immigrants, what social policies should be reached or if health care should be state-run or if colleges should be free, these are all questions without an obvious "truth" to be reached. There I prefer nuance and compromise and seeing both sides, democratic processes, reaching a consensus or at least a broader support and all that.

And now back to the topic. The more "true" and "wrong" there is, the less I like the middle ground and the more I'm willing to be black and white. What taxes are necessary or how high they should be is a nunanced issue. That taxes are necessary in principle is not. They are necessary in principle, an other view is "wrong" to me. 2 + 2 = 4, that I consider a truth, and if 10% of people think it's five, I don't give a damn. I don't compromise in saying, ok, say it's 4.1 then and everyone's happy. I don't move an inch. Black and white. True and false. Climate change to me is similar, as soon as I believe the scientists that there is a problem and measures need to be taken, I don't bother about the other side's stance (unless science finds another "truth", which I suppose won't happen). The mere existence of an opposing view doesn't mean I need to acknowledge or respect it. I think it's a misleading narrative to even define the two sides of the argument as being equally valid and equally important just because both sides exist. Because there is a "truth".

You say you have no idea which side you're on? Choose the side of overwhelming evidence. You don't really see enough opinions on both sides. You have the side of the experts and the side of the doubters, and you either pick one side or stay indifferent and ignorant. Which is ok, for as you rightfully said - you have your own job and stuff to do, you can't know everything about every other topic, no time no proper education no insight. (Which in fact would be an argument for joining those who have these things due to their profession.)
But if you choose a side, I deeply believe there is just a right side and a wrong side here. The deniers' arguments can be debunked and exposed as knowledge-free in most of the cases (whenever there's a half-decent point, I still try to acknowledge that, sure. There just aren't many). In fact, how this could even be a major argument for you and others amazes me. Again, almost all the experts in the field agree. They have the data, the concept, the basic understanding, the lifetime to devote to that very topic. The opposing side claims (has to claim) that scientists are greedy and lie for the money - or that they are incompetent as no other profession. Which is kind of absurd. Just take a look at what the deniers say. They use their "common sense" to disgrace science (see the bizarre outings of Reps in Congressional hearings, snowballs and icecubes in a glass and global wobbling and all that nonsense). They claim a volcano has way more impact than we ever could have - because they simply "see it". They use debunked arguments like sun spots. They are wrong, plain and simple.
Nuance is to be applied when science admits they are not so sure about stuff either, or when some claims leave the grounds of hard facts, or when policy changes are demanded that would be devastating for the economy. One can regard with nuance wheter doomsday predictions are fair or exaggerated and to be opposed. There are all kinds of approaches regarding severity of CC, rightful reactions, policies, and they are mostly sustainable talking points. But the stance "it's a hoax" simply is not. 

Now that's my take, I won't be mad if you take another one and believe the doubter nonsense, I just will tell you that it's nonsense. I won't tell you that there are nuances to the "true or hoax" debate and as a compromise between the two sides we need to do a little, but not too much or that I try to find middle ground and your opinion is just as valuable as the one of the experts. I will be very black and white on that one and believe that this is the right way to regard these problems.

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-18-2017, 02:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: @ mr. masterpanthera - sorry in advance for cherrypicking. Some points, while interesting, don't really demand a response.

As for the nuance thing - I didn't really mean to tag black and white thinking as "wrong". In fact I try to be more distinct sometimes. Which doesn't mean not hearing out other sides, trying to grasp their viewpoint and be open for what they say. I might be more open minded than others, not gonna lie, I see it like that too sometimes. But it's way easier for me. I am an outsider and not part of your everyday colliding partisan stances and your whole machinery. If In were an American, I probably would be a distinct blue factionist, that's just how it is. But never mind that, for I'm not and hence I don't care on that level. Hence I'm more "open minded" strictly due to my outside position. There's not much more to it.

The lack of nuance, now, is a "bad" thing regarding social or other issues where there is no clear-cut "truth" to be reached. To things like gay marriage there is no "truth", I happen to believe they should be granted every right, but that's a stance and not a "truth". How to fight drugs, how to deal with immigrants, what social policies should be reached or if health care should be state-run or if colleges should be free, these are all questions without an obvious "truth" to be reached. There I prefer nuance and compromise and seeing both sides, democratic processes, reaching a consensus or at least a broader support and all that.

And now back to the topic. The more "true" and "wrong" there is, the less I like the middle ground and the more I'm willing to be black and white. What taxes are necessary or how high they should be is a nunanced issue. That taxes are necessary in principle is not. They are necessary in principle, an other view is "wrong" to me. 2 + 2 = 4, that I consider a truth, and if 10% of people think it's five, I don't give a damn. I don't compromise in saying, ok, say it's 4.1 then and everyone's happy. I don't move an inch. Black and white. True and false. Climate change to me is similar, as soon as I believe the scientists that there is a problem and measures need to be taken, I don't bother about the other side's stance (unless science finds another "truth", which I suppose won't happen). The mere existence of an opposing view doesn't mean I need to acknowledge or respect it. I think it's a misleading narrative to even define the two sides of the argument as being equally valid and equally important just because both sides exist. Because there is a "truth".

You say you have no idea which side you're on? Choose the side of overwhelming evidence. You don't really see enough opinions on both sides. You have the side of the experts and the side of the doubters, and you either pick one side or stay indifferent and ignorant. Which is ok, for as you rightfully said - you have your own job and stuff to do, you can't know everything about every other topic, no time no proper education no insight. (Which in fact would be an argument for joining those who have these things due to their profession.)
But if you choose a side, I deeply believe there is just a right side and a wrong side here. The deniers' arguments can be debunked and exposed as knowledge-free in most of the cases (whenever there's a half-decent point, I still try to acknowledge that, sure. There just aren't many). In fact, how this could even be a major argument for you and others amazes me. Again, almost all the experts in the field agree. They have the data, the concept, the basic understanding, the lifetime to devote to that very topic. The opposing side claims (has to claim) that scientists are greedy and lie for the money - or that they are incompetent as no other profession. Which is kind of absurd. Just take a look at what the deniers say. They use their "common sense" to disgrace science (see the bizarre outings of Reps in Congressional hearings, snowballs and icecubes in a glass and global wobbling and all that nonsense). They claim a volcano has way more impact than we ever could have - because they simply "see it". They use debunked arguments like sun spots. They are wrong, plain and simple.
Nuance is to be applied when science admits they are not so sure about stuff either, or when some claims leave the grounds of hard facts, or when policy changes are demanded that would be devastating for the economy. One can regard with nuance wheter doomsday predictions are fair or exaggerated and to be opposed. There are all kinds of approaches regarding severity of CC, rightful reactions, policies, and they are mostly sustainable talking points. But the stance "it's a hoax" simply is not. 

Now that's my take, I won't be mad if you take another one and believe the doubter nonsense, I just will tell you that it's nonsense. I won't tell you that there are nuances to the "true or hoax" debate and as a compromise between the two sides we need to do a little, but not too much or that I try to find middle ground and your opinion is just as valuable as the one of the experts. I will be very black and white on that one and believe that this is the right way to regard these problems.

Yes, was aware of that, but didn't feel like adding this considering I had already written a long post to begin with.  Yes, it's easier to maintain a more objective and/or detached view when you're not directly affected.  I will try to keep this post fairly brief.  And focus mostly on clarifying my earlier post that I don't feel were understood the way it was meant.

To touch on the root of the "no middle ground", I would attribute that to the two party system, which limits people's choices to a party based on one or two of the selector's core issues, whereby, even potentially drastically differing views on non-core issues don't affect party affiliation.  The two party system and some of its flaws and alternatives have been discussed in other threads, and maybe warrants another revisit by most of us in this forum to add more layers, but I digress...

The problem when I say I am not able to choose a side is not from the perspective of picking a technical argument vs. "common sense", it's picking between two technical arguments, which, based on my unfamiliarity is not possible.  You allude to one side not really having a technical argument, which may very well be true (my view leans this way also), but the crux of the problem for me, of picking sides is not so much only the scientific validity, it's all the policy decisions that need to be properly vetted.  That is, I have the luxury of being employed in a sector which is not financially affected by choosing to move forward with "clean" energy (other than possibly relatively "smaller" issues like the cost of goods, utilities etc., that is it doesn't affect the way I make my living).  Your example of 2 + 2 =4, is a bit simplistic or I don't think applies to what I mean about my picking sides.  If I don't have the technical know how, to me, "2" doesn't make any sense, therefore, "4" doesn't make sense either.  If, I knew what "2" and "4" were, based on this analogy, then yes, I mustn't compromise to "4.1".  Personally, I would lean towards the scientists, but that isn't enough for me to make policy choices, unless I was certain that I understood it, to the point that I could start arguing for these policy choices.  Maybe this is just a poor reason to not pick sides.  But picking sides still means we have to talk about the nuances of policy decisions - what is the 5 year plan, ten year plan, how much "polluting" can we live with over the short term, long term, what is irreversible, what is the cost to Americans in terms of health and also financial well being etc.

A nuanced approach, as referenced in my earlier post would have to involve a clear discussion on how to transition from unclean energy to clean energy in places where the economy is driven by fossil fuel extraction.  It would be easy for me to say that "these places have to figure it out and that's that", when I'm not the one facing the immediate burden of those decisions -- objective view/detachment and all that.  But yes, ultimately not changing may very well affect the nation as a whole, and therefore this is a national issue.   Anyways, I will touch on the other part of my post which I think was understood differently than intended.  When I spoke of nuance, and its absence in the U.S political spectrum, I'm talking about the fact that there are so many vested interests which make it impossible to address "polarizing" issues in complete honesty.  This is the "truth" I'm talking about.  Any attempt to have a middle ground is squelched by vested interests which want to paint any position as "completely for" or "completely against", instead of being able to pick stances on particular details of an issue.  Also "truth" in the context I used in the post you referenced was to mean full knowledge (maybe not perfect knowledge but a reasonable level to do stuff) of a topic which it seems is easier to muddy up in our political spectrum by misinformation from vested interests.  IMO, this "truth" context doesn't really apply to a topic like gay marriage because as far as I'm aware we're not dealing with two sets of "facts", but people's views only.  On other issues like climate change (here I'm talking about the larger umbrella of environmental issues to include things like fracking, coal mining, preventing forest cutting etc.) it seems there is a lot of (mis)information which takes away from the "truth".  I'm not really talking about scientists doing the misleading, but things like "if this is done, then it means so and so hates the coal miners of West Virginia", or whatever, instead of saying "does this make sense, if so, what are the immediate costs, how do we mitigate this over the long term", etc.  Or something like, this person simply wants to implement this policy because he wants you to be poor, without any explanation to support that statement.  The sad thing is, neither side's affiliated really demand explanations from their own leaders, it's only demanded of the other.

Hopefully that clarifies it more, or maybe not. 

[hollodero]

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Hopefully that clarifies it more, or maybe not. 

No we agree on many things. I brought up the gay marriage example for the very reason you stated: There is no "truth" in those questions. Should college be free (better example), there is also no "truth", just different answers, probably better and worse ones. But no plain "wrong" ones.

That does not apply for the question "Is climate change a hoax". NO. And there's no wiggle room for me. Because there is a true and false. Hence, a black and white.
That's the difference.

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: but the crux of the problem for me, of picking sides is not so much only the scientific validity, it's all the policy decisions that need to be properly vetted. 

To illustrate: That's exactly what I do not really grasp. These are two different questions you muddle together. And they are to be separated.

a) Is there scientific validity behind CC? YES. (That's my answer) No nuance. 2+2=4, and it's not anything else if people oppose that view. And CC isn't less real when more people deny it. The deniers are not to be considered unless they have a solid case (which they don't), so they are just wrong on the issue. The existence of deniers doesn't make CC any less real. The scientific validity is there, period. That's my "black and white" point.

b) is the mere follow-up question. After acknowledging CC is real in principle and not a Chinese hoax, it's time to talk dealing with CC (apart from trying to evaluate the severity of CC, of course). And at this point it's not a 2+2=4 topic any longer, and clear-cut "truths" are starting to disappear. People need to be heard, other viewpoints need to be considered, concerns need to be addressed and factored into. And so on.

(01-18-2017, 04:01 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Personally, I would lean towards the scientists, but that isn't enough for me to make policy choices, unless I was certain that I understood it

Why not?
Why is believing the scientists "not enough" for you to allow talking about possible consequences? 
You can't possibly understand the full science behind CC, neither can I, we have experts for that. So when they provide the "technical" answers for those who couldn't understand (for they aren't experts), why not make decisions based on these answers and expertises? What more would you need to pick a side and talk possible policy changes? That is the point where I cannot follow. If you would say "I couldn't suggest anything policy-wise", then I'd fully understand. But you seem to avoid taking a stance on CC itself because you're uncertain about the resulting policies - and that's not a good reason to me.

So I'd suggest: Simply start with that question before thinking about anything further. 
Do you believe climate change is "real"? 
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know don't care.

 - What's it gonna be?

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-18-2017, 05:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: No we agree on many things. I brought up the gay marriage example for the very reason you stated: There is no "truth" in those questions. Should college be free (better example), there is also no "truth", just different answers, probably better and worse ones. But no plain "wrong" ones.

That does not apply for the question "Is climate change a hoax". NO. And there's no wiggle room for me. Because there is a true and false. Hence, a black and white.
That's the difference.


To illustrate: That's exactly what I do not really grasp. These are two different questions you muddle together. And they are to be separated.

a) Is there scientific validity behind CC? YES. (That's my answer) No nuance. 2+2=4, and it's not anything else if people oppose that view. And CC isn't less real when more people deny it. The deniers are not to be considered unless they have a solid case (which they don't), so they are just wrong on the issue. The existence of deniers doesn't make CC any less real. The scientific validity is there, period. That's my "black and white" point.

b) is the mere follow-up question. After acknowledging CC is real in principle and not a Chinese hoax, it's time to talk dealing with CC (apart from trying to evaluate the severity of CC, of course). And at this point it's not a 2+2=4 topic any longer, and clear-cut "truths" are starting to disappear. People need to be heard, other viewpoints need to be considered, concerns need to be addressed and factored into. And so on.


Why not?
Why is believing the scientists "not enough" for you to allow talking about possible consequences? 
You can't possibly understand the full science behind CC, neither can I, we have experts for that. So when they provide the "technical" answers for those who couldn't understand (for they aren't experts), why not make decisions based on these answers and expertises? What more would you need to pick a side and talk possible policy changes? That is the point where I cannot follow. If you would say "I couldn't suggest anything policy-wise", then I'd fully understand. But you seem to avoid taking a stance on CC itself because you're uncertain about the resulting policies - and that's not a good reason to me.

So I'd suggest: Simply start with that question before thinking about anything further. 
Do you believe climate change is "real"? 
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don't know don't care.

 - What's it gonna be?

Well first of all, there is no "truth" in what you outlined, but that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about the "truth" of logical or sequential assumptions that can be used to reach a policy implementation.  I may not be able to answer whether college should be free with anything more than my opinion, but if you can put together a series of assumptions (which can be backed up or "true"), which can build on each other to show why maybe this would be a good idea for the country then that is an informed opinion with some "truth" to it, vs. simply saying "college costs too much, therefore should be free".  Not that this is the argument being made, but I'm talking about the truth of claims which are then used to reach a policy decision (it seems to me that neither party really does a great deal of explaining how these claims are true).  

As far as CC is concerned, I think you and I are in agreement, except for this:  I'm saying that since I'm not well versed on the subject, I don't know if there's a scientific consensus.  All your other arguments presuppose a scientific consensus and then pose a question of "do you believe?"  My point is if you show me that there's a scientific consensus (not saying that there isn't), then we can move towards the implementation side of discussion.  So, I, personally cannot say one way or another, unless this can be shown.  It's possible it's there, and I'm just too lazy to look for it.  I'm simply saying that if I am not able to get to that point, I would be voting for policy decisions simply based on faith, which I'd rather not do when it affects other people (especially even more than me).   There are certain other scientific principles I do not understand thoroughly, but take them for granted as they have been scientifically accepted by more or less everyone (things that I learn in school and College etc.).  Possibly this acceptance needs to become mainstream before I myself would be comfortable with voting for policy decisions, but even if that's not the case, I need to be convinced that there is a scientific consensus (Again, not saying that there isn't, but to my untrained eye there's a chance b.s. arguments can still look like valid counters).  I'll put it this way, if you can link up some articles which confirm a scientific consensus, I will consider it seriously.

[Dill]

(01-18-2017, 08:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: As far as CC is concerned, I think you and I are in agreement, except for this:  I'm saying that since I'm not well versed on the subject, I don't know if there's a scientific consensus.  All your other arguments presuppose a scientific consensus and then pose a question of "do you believe?"  My point is if you show me that there's a scientific consensus (not saying that there isn't), then we can move towards the implementation side of discussion.  So, I, personally cannot say one way or another, unless this can be shown.  It's possible it's there, and I'm just too lazy to look for it.  I'm simply saying that if I am not able to get to that point, I would be voting for policy decisions simply based on faith, which I'd rather not do when it affects other people (especially even more than me).   There are certain other scientific principles I do not understand thoroughly, but take them for granted as they have been scientifically accepted by more or less everyone (things that I learn in school and College etc.).  Possibly this acceptance needs to become mainstream before I myself would be comfortable with voting for policy decisions, but even if that's not the case, I need to be convinced that there is a scientific consensus (Again, not saying that there isn't, but to my untrained eye there's a chance b.s. arguments can still look like valid counters).  I'll put it this way, if you can link up some articles which confirm a scientific consensus, I will consider it seriously.

If you are not a scientist, you might find the political history of climate change denial more interesting than the science itself--especially the effort to confuse the public regarding climate science.

But as to the oft referenced scientific consensus, a good place to start is NASA's official position:                        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
They also have a climate change tutorial which is a public service.

But there are dozens of sources on this consensus Check chapter 4 here:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3YMUAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=consensus+on+climate+change&ots=MwHEg_0cBM&sig=bkHN_MiIAfQmdBzwEr29OCxqBUU#v=onepage&q=consensus%20on%20climate%20change&f=false

Scientists check the consensus themselves here. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
Abstract: "A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

[hollodero]

Sorry was cut off from the net (what a third world country), I will answer throughout the day

[hollodero]

(01-18-2017, 08:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Well first of all, there is no "truth" in what you outlined, but that's not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about the "truth" of logical or sequential assumptions that can be used to reach a policy implementation.  I may not be able to answer whether college should be free with anything more than my opinion, but if you can put together a series of assumptions (which can be backed up or "true"), which can build on each other to show why maybe this would be a good idea for the country then that is an informed opinion with some "truth" to it, vs. simply saying "college costs too much, therefore should be free".  Not that this is the argument being made, but I'm talking about the truth of claims which are then used to reach a policy decision (it seems to me that neither party really does a great deal of explaining how these claims are true).  

Good arguments are not "truths". Although I'm for free education, state expenses are a valid argument against free college. Whenever arguments are involved, I carry out my old virtual beam balance, try to attach the appropriate weight to all arguments (which is not 100% objective, of course not) on both sides, see where the balance leans for me and form my opinion. But it more or less stays an opinion.
That CC is true is not so much an "opinion" for me, like evolution is no opinion, or let's say gravity, to be polemic. But I see your follow-up, so that's just for mentioning the difference between preferrably nuanced debates vs. preferrably clear-cut black-and-white debates.

(01-18-2017, 08:17 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: As far as CC is concerned, I think you and I are in agreement, except for this:  I'm saying that since I'm not well versed on the subject, I don't know if there's a scientific consensus.  All your other arguments presuppose a scientific consensus and then pose a question of "do you believe?"  My point is if you show me that there's a scientific consensus (not saying that there isn't), then we can move towards the implementation side of discussion.  So, I, personally cannot say one way or another, unless this can be shown.  It's possible it's there, and I'm just too lazy to look for it.  I'm simply saying that if I am not able to get to that point, I would be voting for policy decisions simply based on faith, which I'd rather not do when it affects other people (especially even more than me).   There are certain other scientific principles I do not understand thoroughly, but take them for granted as they have been scientifically accepted by more or less everyone (things that I learn in school and College etc.).  Possibly this acceptance needs to become mainstream before I myself would be comfortable with voting for policy decisions, but even if that's not the case, I need to be convinced that there is a scientific consensus (Again, not saying that there isn't, but to my untrained eye there's a chance b.s. arguments can still look like valid counters).  I'll put it this way, if you can link up some articles which confirm a scientific consensus, I will consider it seriously.

Well, you're lazy then. :)
OK, let's start with claiming that 97% of climate scientists are on the side of CC is true. Around 3% are not. If that number defines a "consensus" for you, I don't know. There are people with scientific background that doubt the moon landing - still I'd say it's a "scientific consensus" that it wasn't staged by Stanley Kubrick. I think 97% is a sufficient amount of experts on one side of the topic.
There are of course prominient CC deniers, I remember that Fred Singer guy (because he was invited to Auistrian parliament once), Bjorn Lomborg, that former greenpeace head and then some. But to my knowledge there is not a single country or society that draws such a distinct picture of a still torn scientific community then the American one. The rest of the world more or less accepts CC (which here and always means "man-made CC") as true, apart from some populists and quite a lot of irrelevant uneducated people. I guess you see some debates in the US though where a sceptic and a believer argue and hence the picture of a lacking consensus is painted. If you want to picture the ratio corerectly, you would need a debate between one CC denier and 32 CC believers.
You asked me for links, and that's what's makes you lazy. It is easy to find these. I can show that 97% figure with one link or a hundred ones, Dill already did it, I just throw in one, two, three - if you need more, they will be on German :)

Additionally, what deniers (in my eyes) also fail to do is explaining why the already visible effects of CC occur if it's not CC. They often claim thing like "it's the sun" - which isn't true,  link. They say volcanoes overlay all human emissions (untrue), they claim it's a natural cycle (also untrue) and then some. Less and less flat-out deny that the visible effects are really there, but sure those are around as well. They claim sea levels are not rising (they do, link, link, inhabitants of Tuvalu and other pacific islands know that and take measuires, all kinds of people in all kinds of coastal regions take measures all over the world, even Donald Trump takes measures by applying dams to a coastal golf course of his). They claim there is no warming (there is, link, the whole hockey stick is out there on 10.000 sites), they claim glaciers do not melt (they do, link, and it also happens in my country and all over the world), they claim oceans don't get more acidic (they do, link - it's threatening ocean's food chains, and it's due to the additional CO2 they take, heuristically CO2 + H2O forms H2CO3 or carbonic acid, but that is NOT the most scientific explanation).
All of these denials can be debunked, because all of these things can actually be measured.

So, to close for now, many deniers now claim, ok there is some warming, but it's not all that bad, we can adapt. That is the one talking point I still accept as valid (although I do not agree, mostly because of the rist - and the oceans). This debate can be lead. Denying climate change, however, at this point starts to become treacherous. Just let me add this at the end: Deniers get paid. There are huge interest groups that still want to keep that narrative, they spend billions. When the denier's argument is "the CC scientists are greedy and invent CC so they can get money", it makes me mad to my bones. I mentioned already why, but still. The denial still has a huge lobby in your country (and as far as I know, ONLY in your country), your republican party being one of the lobbyists. Hence scientists are kept relevant which probably wouldn't be if the scientific world would do the evaluation of their works and findings (as they should). Voilá.

[masterpanthera_t]

(01-20-2017, 03:29 AM)Dill Wrote: If you are not a scientist, you might find the political history of climate change denial more interesting than the science itself--especially the effort to confuse the public regarding climate science.

But as to the oft referenced scientific consensus, a good place to start is NASA's official position:                        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
They also have a climate change tutorial which is a public service.

But there are dozens of sources on this consensus Check chapter 4 here:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3YMUAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=consensus+on+climate+change&ots=MwHEg_0cBM&sig=bkHN_MiIAfQmdBzwEr29OCxqBUU#v=onepage&q=consensus%20on%20climate%20change&f=false

Scientists check the consensus themselves here. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
Abstract: "A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Thanks for the links.  I will check out NASA's position, but for now, this seems to be a very credible argument in favor of scientific consensus on climate change.